by Kevin Allen, USA TODAY Sports

by Kevin Allen, USA TODAY Sports

Negotiating is like playing poker in that reading an opponent's tendencies and strategy can be the pathway to success. Your next play always depends upon your analysis of what the person across the bargaining table is thinking.

The NHL Players Association clearly isn't where it wants to be in collective bargaining negotiations with owners, but players no longer have to guess what owners are thinking.

After talks broke off Thursday in New York, NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly said bluntly: "Term limits on player contracts is the hill we will die on," Daly said.

The bad news is that negotiations have collapsed, no new talks are scheduled and the entire 2012-13 season is endangered.The good news is that all of the cards are now on the table and everyone understands where they have to go to get the deal done.

That actually is good news because one of the reasons why negotiations have moved tediously slow is because each side was fearful of what the other side might do next. Owners didn't like the way Donald Fehr reacted to their proposals and the NHLPA didn't like Gary Bettman, period.

Fehr insists that the two sides are close to a deal simply on the basis of a side-by-side comparison. Owners dispute that because their last offer was contingent upon the players accepting it in its entirety. They said, it was either a Yes, Yes or 'No. Choosing what you like and discarding what you didn't wasn't allowed, said owners.

But the two parties are at least closer to a deal simply because they know precisely where they need to go if they want to launch the 2012-13 season.

As someone who has watched these negotiations run in place for months accompanied by pointless, childish name-calling and endless Twitter wars, I am going to call that an absurd form of progress.

Players know if they want to get this show on the road, they can accept a 10-year CBA, with an eight-year opt-out clause, and a 50-50 split of hockey-related revenue. Plus, there is a five-year cap on contract lengths with an exception granted for teams trying to re-sign their own restricted and unrestricted free agents. Team can sign those players for seven years. Also, owners insist on a maximum 5% year-to-year variance on multi-year contracts to prevent teams from back-diving contracts. Players would also get $300 million back to ensure that those with previously signed contracts are made whole or somewhat whole.

Now obviously I know that the NHL has officially withdrawn that offer, but I would be willing to bet some of my hockey-related revenue that if Fehr called Bettman tonight and said he would now take that deal the owners offer would would miraculously reappear. Call it a hunch. However, there is definitely an expiration date on the miraculous reappearance.

Now if owners wake up tomorrow and decide just want to play, they get the 50-50 split, but the CBA length would be eight years, with an opt-out at six years. Plus, the cap of players' salaries would be eight years, with a clause to allow teams to negotiate an extension in the middle of a contract. There was a clause to address owners' concern about back-diving contracts, but it was nowhere close to the owners' plan.

Now it simply comes down to pain tolerance for the negotiating parties. According to Bettman, players are losing $8 million to $10 million in salary every day and the league is losing $18 million to $20 million daily in revenue.

Daly's message was purposeful to be sure. He's not a man prone to hyperbole. He speaks with a purpose, and he's clearly sending the message that the owners won't budge on contract length. I would choose to believe him. Now players have to decide whether this issue is enough to risk losing $1.5 billion in salaries this season.

I have said what I thought was fair and unfair months ago, and those debates are useless now. This is like the argument that a parent has with a teenager after some form of mischief or misconduct. The kid keeps pleading extenuating circumstances and playing the fairness card and the parent has to continually remind the teenager that it was time to move beyond those arguments and face the consequences of the action.

The consequences here are the destruction of the sport. How do you face fans if you cancel an entire season for the second time?

Thursday's blowup cost players millions and millions of dollars â?? maybe another 10% of their pay -- because two days ago we were talking about the possibility of a 58-game schedule and this morning, we are hoping for a 48-game schedule.

Players will have to decide whether the reality is more important than the principle, especially with regard to the five-year cap. It affects a smaller percentage of players, but the vast majority of players it affects are stars.

If I had a son just starting out in the NHL, I don't know how I would advise him about the contract cap. But I would tell him that I think players should embrace the owners' plan of a 10-year CBA. I think a 10-year CBA is actually in players' best interest.

Fehr is certainly right when he says a desiring a shorter deal is the ethical approach for the NHLPA because players turn over regularly and new players deserve a chance to have a say about their future. It's his job to look after future generations of NHL players.

But I've heard for months from players and agents that their great fear of going to 50-50 is that it will be the launch point for more concessions in the next CBA fight. Even with the major concessions players have made, they still have a good deal, and their money is good. The NHL revenues will take a hit this season and maybe next season. But the NHL was in a growth spurt when this lockout began, and it will most assuredly rebound, particularly if this season is played. A 10-year deal will prevent owners from coming back from more any time soon. Plus, at the end of 10 years, the NHL leadership could be dramatically altered.

Frankly, it seems nutty to me that the players are considering anything less than 10 years.